Yngwie Malmsteen

hes very advanced and becasue of that he has the right to have a big ego.
More so, the opposite. If the first time I pick up a guitar I can play at a truly advanced level, then maybe (just maybe) I can lay claim to some ego. Otherwise, I know what it took to get there, and that should not be an ego trip.

screamguy, this would be under the assumption that Malmsteen is considerd "advanced" as you said. Advanced how? Because he can play super duper fast?

Ok. I can't let this go. yM is an advanced guitarist. That is indisputable. He doesn't just play fast. He plays in key, with melody and I think harmonically even a jazz head could say he knows his theory. To debate whether or not he is an advanced guitarist is just ignorant and I dare say arrogant. Especially from someone who's skills are less than exemplary. That is not a claim that I am any better.

Opinions about like and dislike are fine. But to outright question his ability, that is preposterous.

A few years ago, a professor of mine stood up in front of the class and played three versions of the same song. I forget the song's name, but I do recall that it was covered by a rock vocalist, Sarah Vaughan, and an opera singer.

The prof then asked people to vote for their favorite. Most of the class voted for the rock version, which was technically the most sloppy. A few of us voted for Sarah Vaughan, and one guy voted for the opera singer.

He then polled the class on their musical training. Most of the people who voted for the rock version had 5 or fewer years of formal musical education. Those of us who voted for Vaughan had between 5 and 10 years of musical education. The fellow who voted for the opera singer had 12 years of training as an opera singer himself.

To the rest of the class, the opera version was "technically proficient but lacked emotion." To the trained opera singer, it was an inspired cover.

There's no doubt that some times narrow technical proficiency in an art form demands the same level of proficiency to be properly appreciated.

That doesn't mean that those who dislike Yngwei are poor judges of talent, anymore than it means I'm a poor judge of vocalists just because I choose Sarah Vaughan over some opera diva whose name I can't recall.

But to say his playing lacks emotion MAY (not is, may) be saying far more about the listener than about Yngwei.

All that said, I don't happen to like his style of music. I also think he's a jerk, so even if I did like his style of music, I'd probably not support him by purchasing his product.

To the rest of the class, the opera version was "technically proficient but lacked emotion." To the trained opera singer, it was an inspired cover.

There's no doubt that some times narrow technical proficiency in an art form demands the same level of proficiency to be properly appreciated.

I doubt that. I think any 'fan' of opera would have given the same answer as the trained singer, although the trained singer may have a deeper appreciation for the technique required.

It's like listening to Spanish. If you don't speak the language, it sounds difficult... it sounds fast, it's got those trilled Rs... it seems difficult to someone whose native language is English. That doesn't make it a 'better' language than English

I do have a good parallel to Yngwie though: Travis Barker. The drummer for Blink182. He is admired almost exclusively by drummers, just as Yngwie's followers are guitarists. He's widely admired by those into his style - what should I call it, bubblegum punk? - and nearly unknown outside of it, just as Yngwie is. And if you ask a drummer who is musically versatile what they think about Travis, you'll likely get a thumbs down... with the comment that "he's only about fast".

Oh, and Screamoguy - you're mistaken about jealousy. Of course there are musicians we'd like to play like... I'm jealous of DiMeola, and I can't play everything he does. But I'm also jealous of somebody like John Lee Hooker - and I have the technical ability to duplicate anything I've ever heard by him. There is that musical 'something extra' about Hooker (and hundreds of others) that makes him what he is, defines his sound. Every musician I know aspires to that - their own sound, their own unmistakeable fingerprint on what they play.

So I can musically play Hooker, but I can't channel him - and that's the part that's worthwhile... not being able to play Hooker, but to be able to expess like Hooker. Would it be nice to play like Yngwie? Maybe. Do I want to be able to express like Yngwie? No.

Nothing wrong with a bit of envy -- it inspires many to do better. And it is possible to envy someone's talants and admire them and praise them at the same time. Trashing someone because (s)he is better than oneself is about one's own insecurity and pettiness, not simple envy ("jealousy" in this thread).

Many of our greatest historical and contemporary figures are insufferable a-holes. One has to learn to separate the works from the person or we'd be disregarding a lot of true genious. We are fortunate that in most cases, we have little personal exposure to the personalities who've produced much of our enduring arts and literature. However, as stated above, talent gives no one the "right" to be arrogant. Arrogance and supersized ego seem to be traits that develop just fine in the absence of talent. Let's not confuse causality here.

I think of YM as a human analog to harpsicord or banjo. His dimensions of expression are limited. In his case not actually by the instrument, but his primary techniques. One of those key dimensions is speed, another is harmonic development. Because emphasis and tonal control of individual notes in the midst sweep picking are extremely difficult, one must make it up in the overall loudness, rhythm (speed, timing), and choice of notes. YM is a virtuoso at this sort of thing. Unfortunately, for many of us these are not the only important dimensions we'd like to experience in our music. For example, the control of attack, tone, micro-pitch of individual notes helps create a vocal quality that moves us "emotionally." This particular feature is not a strong aspect of YM playing technique and many of pick up on that after only a couple tunes. He doesn't suck. We are indifferent, as despite being so great at what he does, he fails to move us in ways we like to be moved. Like music played on harpsicord and banjo, I like to hear his playing more as a short feature in a piece containing a lot of other instruments/voices -- or once in a while as a background or musical substrate upon which other ideas get added. (Alert: opinion followed by speculation) Too much harpiscord or banjo becomes annoying after a while -- and this is why piano and the archtop (and steel flattop) guitar, once invented and refined, quickly took over many of the roles of each of the earlier instruments. These new instruments where much more expressive in more dimensions than the old.

Hueseph, like I said, it depends on what you consider advanced. One can have all the musical knowledge in the world, know every chord, every ounce of theory, but if one cannot communicate threw one's instrument, show emotion threw it, he or she is not advanced to me.

And I don't see what my personal guitar playing has to do with anything. I never said I consider my self advanced, or even intermediate for that matter.

Taso: come on man. Your sidestepping. You've directly suggested that YM is a poor guitarist which simply isn't true. Greg has put it nicely 'he is not proficient in the areas that move you' . That kind of comment I can accept. It is a true statement that doesn't venture into opinion and force it into fact.

When you comment on someones ability or level of proficiency, then your own ability becomes a good meter for the validity of your comment.

Say what you mean and mean what you say.

I think it's safe to say he is very, very good at what he does.

Hue, I never said he was a poor guitarist. Nor did I suggest it. I said he wasn't an advanced guitarist by the means that I consider advanced. I said "I wouldn't consider that advanced" (I think thats what I wrote, correct me if I'm wrong here). And I clarifed that further after you commented on it
it depends on what you consider advanced. One can have all the musical knowledge in the world, know every chord, every ounce of theory, but if one cannot communicate threw one's instrument, show emotion threw it, he or she is not advanced to me.

And again, whether my playing is good or not, has no relation to YM's playing and his ability. There is no link between them. I am not in anyway, saying that I am a better guitarist than YM. If I was, we could listen to one of the recordings on Hear Here, and you could tear that argument to shreds. That's not what I'm doing though, because I know he is better than me. Jason Giambi, no bad example-- Derek Jeter is a better baseball player than me, does that mean I don't have the ability to comment on his playing? He's a better player than most of the sportscaster people too (I'd assume), but they are PAID to ramble on with their opinions on his playing.

Why is everyone getting so territorial about this? You're acting like criticizing YM is similar to making derogatory comments about your mother. WHO CARES!! We all have our opinions and no one's gonna change that, no matter how irrational our opinions are.

I believe that Yngwie is a one-trick pony and his music doesnt have the emotion or feel that I think is necessary to make good music. I look at music as a complete product, and as long as the pieces make up a decent whole, that's what matters. If your playing is lacking, you can still make up a whole product that conveys feeling and emotion because you believe that what you are doing is important and you dont have an ego about it.

I think Dashboard Confessional is a solid band. Their music oozes feeling and it comes DIRECTLY from the heart. Granted, Chris Carrabba cant play a freakin barre chord (a point rich has made on many an occasion) but does that mean the music automatically sucks? Not at all. If only accpomplished, educated players made music worth listening to, the musical landscape would be homogenized and boring and lack diversity.

So in short, i believe creativity vastly outweighs your technical guitar ability. I almost never say something like this but I believe people who equate ability with automatic goodness and shun those with less ability to be totally wrong.

When you comment on someones ability or level of proficiency, then your own ability becomes a good meter for the validity of your comment.

This just isn't true. Most people wouldn't be qualified to be the President of the United States, but that doesn't mean they can't criticize the job the President does. Most people don't have the ability to play Major League Baseball, but that doesn't mean they can't criticize an MLB player's ability. Now, if they were to say they could do a better job than the President or a ball player, then their own abilities do definitely come into question, but just criticizing them, the critic's abilities do not matter. Same goes with guitarists. Nobody here has said they can play better than YM.

Agreed Stormy

Just because I may not be able to play piano doesn't mean I don't have the right to criticize or comment on the work of a pianist. I don't know what makes people think they have to prove themselves as an equal before they are able to criticize.

YM has an extraordinary talent, and I don't think there are very many people who could be his equal in terms of technicaly ability. Does that mean that NO ONE is allowed to criticize him? Hardly. and besides, I doubt Yngwie makes music just so his equals can hear it. People make music for the masses, so, by hueseph's logic, that means that no one can criticize him. That's not fair. If I made an album, I could care less what talented guitarists thought about it. I'd care about what Joe Schmoe from Arkansas thinks about it and whether or not my message was getting across to the average music fan. Cos that's what matters in the end.

I hold the emotion, message and feeling of music as FAR SUPERIOR to ability. For me, that is the sole point of music, the one reason that makes people pick up a guitar or not change the station on the radio.

I hope I'm not rambling pointlessly.

Most people wouldn't be qualified to be the President of the United States, but that doesn't mean they can't criticize the job the President does. Most people don't have the ability to play Major League Baseball, but that doesn't mean they can't criticize an MLB player's ability. Now, if they were to say they could do a better job than the President or a ball player, then their own abilities do definitely come into question, but just criticizing them, the critic's abilities do not matter. Same goes with guitarists. Nobody here has said they can play better than YM.

As it has been pointed out before, your own ability to play ads credibility to you criticism. A president may be well versed in politics and have every qualification to preside over a country but you may not like his decision making. When you see an athelete fumble or a team screw up a play it's usualy over a bad decision not a lack of ability. You may complain about what a player does to screw up a play but would you contend his ability as a player? Likely not because you know full well that if you were more capable you would be on that field instead of him. It is good and fine to criticize like and dislike but when speaking of ability, the proof is in the pudding.

Speaking of a particular president who many of us may not like, he obviously knows his politics because he remains in office. You cannot question his ability to maintain his presidency, however bad his decisions may have been.

You may complain over how Microsoft has screwed the public with it's feeble OS but what do you know about programming? Where is your wonderful work?

Ability and palatability are two whol-ly different things.

If you were in the room with YM would you be schooling him about feeling? I'd like to see that. And, to reiterate, I am not a fan of Yngwie Malmsteen.

I probably wouldn't be schooling him about feeling. Clapton would school him to death about it. Hendrix's ghost would do the same thing. Which is why I find it annoying when YM's name is uttered with a sense of wonder, as if he is an amazing guitarist and up on some higher level.

As it has been pointed out before, your own ability to play ads credibility to you criticism.

Of course it does, but it doesn't mean if you don't have ability your criticism holds no weight, which seems to be the position you're taking.
When you see an athelete fumble or a team screw up a play it's usualy over a bad decision not a lack of ability.

If I see an athlete screw up one play, then yes it could be a bad decision, or just being human. If I look over a player's career and see a lot of screw ups, then chances are he's not a very good player.
You may complain about what a player does to screw up a play but would you contend his ability as a player? Likely not because you know full well that if you were more capable you would be on that field instead of him. It is good and fine to criticize like and dislike but when speaking of ability, the proof is in the pudding.

I absolutely do criticize athletes' abilities. Doug Glanville, baseball player. He had one or two good seasons, but has done nothing since. He can't hit, he can't get on base, and he's a liability in the field. He's an all around bad player. I can say that. I can't say I can play better than he can. If I say he's a bad player, that's fine. If I say I can do better, I'd better put up or shut up.
You may complain over how Microsoft has screwed the public with it's feeble OS but what do you know about programming? Where is your wonderful work?

I'll have my degree in Computer Science this summer. Ask me this in a couple more years. :wink:
If you were in the room with YM would you be schooling him about feeling? I'd like to see that.

If he asked me what I honestly thought of his music I'd tell him I didn't care for it, and it does nothing for me. I wouldn't tell him I could do better.
And, to reiterate, I am not a fan of Yngwie Malmsteen.

That's one point you've made very clear. :)